Scotland On The Brink

Are the wheels falling off the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence?
by Gerry Hassan

They may still be ahead in the polls, but the gap has narrowed significantly. Two years of dire warnings about the perils of ‘separatism’ and ‘tearing Scotland out the United Kingdom’ have only exposed the threadbare, tetchy character of the pro-union argument so far. In November last year the Economist had declared the referendum won for the union; now it reflects on the ‘teflon’ qualities of Scottish nationalism, and the incessant ‘pessimism’ of the pro-union side. Beyond [former Labour politician and one time NATO Secretary-General] George Robertson’s dire warnings of ‘cataclysmic’ geo-political consequences and ‘the forces of darkness’, a sea change is happening in Scotland which will have an impact long after the referendum.

First, look at the careless language that pro-union senior figures use. Margaret Curran [ Labour’s Shadow Secretary for Scotland] dismissed Alex Salmond’s major conference speech at the weekend as ‘drivel’. Alistair Darling has form as well. Less than an hour after the Scottish Government White Paper on independence was released, he was dismissing it as ‘a work of fiction’ – hardly the tone becoming a former statesman.

Second, the Better Together forces do not want this debate. They are fighting a battle which they would prefer not to, at a time not of their choosing, and when their political opponents are mobilised and galvanised. This fundamental cuts through everything that Better Together does; behind their rhetoric, they are running a defensive political contest, and one of retreat. They are presiding over a virtual, rather than real political campaign: mostly without foot soldiers, made up of three party leaderships, parts of the mainstream media, and business organisations and corporate CEOs.

Third, there is a profound lack of respect for the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the pro-union side of differing degrees, running from near-hatred in parts of Labour to a more nuanced opposition in Lib Dems, and with the Tories somewhere in-between. At its worst in Labour, there is a churlish, resentful view that the Nationalists are a party of deceit and deception, about whom not a single good word can be said.

Take George Robertson in the Scottish Review. In a February piece this year he admonished the SNP for daring to claim that under independence ‘We will always get the government we vote for’. He pointed out that a mere 45.4% of those who voted supported the SNP in 2011 on a 50.4% turnout, thus showing that 55% of those voting ‘did not want an SNP Government but they got it, divisive referendum and all’. It was sad stuff, niggling over small detail – oblivious to Labour winning three election landslides under Blair on minority votes, or that Scottish Labour for all its Westminster seats has never won a majority of the vote.

Fourth, there is the problem with the cybernationalists who Labour complain about at length. Cybernat excesses should be condemned, but there are issues with how criticism is often framed. Alistair Darling has made numerous interventions against the cybernats to the point it sounds much like special pleading. This should be beneath Darling as leader of Better Together and instead be left to his lieutenants.

There is also the mirroring of language between the cybernationalists and some senior pro-union figures – the difference being that the former are activists and the latter are once-influential statesmen. Robertson, for one, has lambasted the cybernats for their aggressive language, and for representing the politics of ‘the cesspit’, failing to note how one-dimensional and dismissive of opponents his language often is.

Fifth, Better Together are failing to keep their own zealots under control – partly because they have swallowed their own narrative that Scotland is a land terrorised by cybernationalist gangs. This reflects something deeper and long-term: the abject failure of responsibility at the heart of the pro-union campaign.

Johann Lamont has commented of the SNP that ‘It wasn’t my party which walked through the lobbies to create a Tory Government under Margaret Thatcher … and Scotland will never forgive them’; Margaret Curran asked ‘what has devolution ever done for Easterhouse?’ These comments and many more indicate that Labour seems to see all of the inadequacies of modern Scotland as being – at root cause – the fault of the SNP.

Thus ignoring that Labour was the dominant party of Scotland for fifty years, or that some of the party’s own anti-devolutionists (Johann Lamont and Brian Wilson being two) campaigned against their party’s 1979 devolution plans, contributing to the fall of the-then Labour Government.

What, if anything, is the solution ? One is to argue for a more emotionally resonant case for the United Kingdom. Maybe something such as billboards proclaiming ‘We Are Family’ (invoking the Sister Sledge disco anthem of solidarity and compassion) and icons such as Alex Ferguson personifying this feeling and sense of belonging. [ That would do it ? Really ? Editor.]

Another is for the pro-union campaign to unite behind one coherent devolution offer, a path recommended by the Economist’s’ ‘Bagehot’ column. This would entail a joint Labour-Lib Dem-Tory plan which would face the issue of Tory toxicity [ and] guilt by association…..

Missing in such ‘solutions’ is an understanding of the long-term crisis of unionism. The emotional case for it would resonate with older voters. But you cannot nurture something you haven’t watered and tended carefully over decades. It could smack of a desperate change of message and play into Salmond’s territory. Similarly, [offering] some devolution plan as the answer ignores that all such proposals have a Westminster veto, and would not deal with the economic and social inequalities of the UK…..

One recurring theme in the above, seldom commented upon at any length, is the particular ill-ease of Labour unionism. This is a party and tradition which has consistently associated unionism with Toryism and the idea of British nationalism with right-wing reactionary views. Historically, it stood, it argues, not for [UK] unionism, but for socialism or a social democratic United Kingdom.

Labour has always in the past seen the [Scotland/UK] union as a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end in question was the clarion call of socialism, social justice and greater equality. With the UK further removed than ever before from this state of affairs, after 30 years of post-war Labour Governments, the party has become trapped in the logic of the union as an end in itself. Hence the empty rhetoric of ‘we are Better Together’ and ‘the best of both worlds’: abstract statements of faith with very little link to the realities of present day Britain.

For years the union case in Scotland was a given. It was something which just went unsaid as it was part of the fabric of the nation, uncontested by elites, institutional opinion and most of public opinion. That all began to change from the mid-1960s onwards but union Scotland did not adjust to the new realities emerging – and instead sought a series of incoherent compromises based on retreat under challenge from Scottish nationalism and home rule support.

This brings us in the present day to a contest in which pro-union Scotland and Britain is poorly equipped to take on, explain and campaign with vim and passion. Instead, what we can see is a campaign of several duff notes: with Cameron and Osborne threatening Scotland on currency union, Darling, Robertson and Lamont not even trying to [understand] the legitimate aspirations of mainstream Scottish nationalism, the occasional ‘love bomb’ just to change tone, and the embarrassment of UK Government ministers not knowing the first thing about Scotland or the union. Step forward UK International Development Secretary Justine Greening as the latest example, caught dumbfounded in East Kilbride when asked to make the ‘positive case’ and ‘why are we better together?’

The consequences of this are obvious for all to see. Where it leads was explored a decade ago in a study by Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan who stated that the demise of ‘a gut, instinctual unionism’ binding the UK together might not matter in the immediate, but it would become a telling factor when crises and tensions emerged in the future, leading to the eventual breakup of the union.

We have not yet reached this point…It isn’t beyond the bounds of possibilities that a new kind of unionism could emerge post-September, but will require a new generation of politicians and very different pro-union parties. Until then, we are faced with a campaign dominated by two nationalisms, one modern, progressive, ‘Big Tent’, happy to win over converts and recognise non-nationalist voices (Scottish), the other, harking back to the past, nervous of how to speak to unsure Scotland, wishing this debate was over and wasn’t happening (British).

When will the British nationalism of Better Together wake up and realise that it is a nationalism – and one which seems shaped by entitlement culture, and Scotland’s and Britain’s establishment feeling aggrieved at having to explain themselves? Slowly and visibly, they are losing the Scotland they profess to care about so much, and in the process preventing the discussion moving on to the non-nationalist terrain of the kind of Scotland we aspire to and want to live in…

Footnote : The vote on the referendum question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” will be held on September 18, 2014.

It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

About the author : Gerry Hassan is Research Fellow in cultural policy at the University of the West of Scotland

Gerry is the author and editor of The Strange Death of Labour Scotland and the just published After Independence (co-edited with James Mitchell). His Caledonian Dreaming: The Quest for a Different Scotland was published in April 2014.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 at 9:26 am and is filed under Feature, World.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback
from your own site.

No comments yet.

Write a comment:

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published)(required)

Website (optional)

Enter The ‘Wolf

Hi and welcome to the 56th edition of Werewolf, in which our cover story this month analyses the remarkable change of global public opinion towards the Papacy that Pope Francis has wrought – especially so, given the depths of unpopularity to which the Vatican had sunk during the reign of his predecessor Benedict XVI, who seemed unable (or unwilling) to respond adequately to the fallout from the Church’s child sex abuse scandals. Pope Francis’ marketing coup seems all the more extraordinary given that – as Werewolf story points out in detail – this transformation of the Church’s image has been accomplished without any discernible change in its core doctrines. Our story does not regard this as merely a cynical marketing exercise. It also traces the links between the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the liberal tradition of liberation theology that flourished in South America during the 1970s and 1980s…

Elsewhere in this issue, Werewolf interviews James Shaw, the Green Party’s new co-leader about his rationale for last year’s election loss - and his future plans for collaboration in government with Labour, and for the prospects of useful policy engagement with the current government. As the US begins to gear up for the 2016 election year and the first round of party primaries, Richard McLachlan reports on the reasons why outsider Bernie Sanders is winning such strong support among Democratic Party activists and working class Americans, even though Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner for the Dems’ presidential nomination. On a lighter note, Richard also writes about attending a taping of America’s Got Talent – an experience which for him, triggered comparisons and contrasts with the music and dance Competitions once so popular in New Zealand.

While Edward Snowden’s revelations have turned the spotlight on mass surveillance and illicit surveillance, precious little attention has been given to how our legal system can/should handle the security evidence gathered by these means. On this issue, Werewolf interviewed Professor Geoff McLay of the NZ Law Commission, who is currently chairing the Commission’s current review of NZ’s legal procedures for handling secret data, a process that’s being timed to coincide with the upcoming Cullen/Reddy review of the security agencies themselves. Will the alleged needs of national security be able to co-exist with the hallowed rights to open justice - and the related right for people to access and challenge all the evidence for the allegations the state is making against them. As Werewolf reveals, it’s a balancing act that threatens to pit national security against some of our most ancient freedoms.

Hollywood will trample all over any film classic if there’s money to be made with a reboot. The shit they pull, huh? Already, the trailer for the remake/reboot of the early 1990s cult movie Point Break has united the Internet in an outpouring of unanimous loathing for the very idea of tampering with the original’s blend of bromance, surf mysticism, bank robbery, sky-diving, and action movie dynamics - all of it stirred to perfection by the beautiful wooden spoon that was Keanu Reeves. In his film column this month, Philip Matthews goes back to experience Kathryn Bigelow’s 1993 movie afresh. Among other things, Philip finds telling similarities between where Keanu’s Johnny Utah character ends up at the Point Break finale, and where Jessica Chastain’s character found herself, post Obama, at the close of Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty. It isn’t over until its over – but then waddya do? Chances are, people will not be asking any existential questions about the reboot, come the year 2037. Elsewhere in our film coverage this issue, we use the release of Ant Man to celebrate the everyman genius of Paul Rudd.

Thanks to Lyndon Hood for helping me post this issue online. If anyone out there ever wants to be involved and talk over some story ideas, contact me at gordon@werewolf.co.nz

Cheers,
Gordon Campbell
Editor, Werewolf

Become a Werewolf.co.nz Sustaining
Subscriber - join the alternative to the mainstream media
mind-set!

We are seeking your help to keep
Werewolf.co.nz going. If you agree to
become a Werewolf Sustaining Subscriber we are asking you to subscribe to pay $10, $15 (or more if you choose) a month to
support Werewolf. This can be done either via: